LAMARTINE BERNABE Vs. COMMUNIDADE OF CAVELOSSIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Writ Petitioners herein are the second set of Defendants i.e. Defendant Nos. 3 to 7(a) in Civil Suit No. 12/2005, and, in this Writ Petition they have challenged the Order dated 1-7-2006 of the learned District Judge, Margao, by which the objections taken by the plaintiffs for filing the written statements by the said Defendants on 3-4-2006, have been upheld.

(2.) THE learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that the Defendants could have filed their applications raising objections to the maintainability of the suit on the first returnable date, and file their written statements without prejudice to the disposal of their applications but the Defendants took considerable time and filed the written statements only on 3-4-2006 almost a year after the issue of summons for settlement of issues.

(3.) ON the next date i.e. on 9-8-2005, the Defendants filed two applications, one(Exh.D-18) under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that the suit was not maintainable and the other(Exh.D-19) praying that the application for rejection of the plaint be decided first, and depending on the outcome of the same, they may be allowed to file W.S. The Court only noted on the last application "file". ON 25-8-2005 another application was filed for amendment and thereafter the case was adjourned on 29-8-2005, 19-9-2005, 11-10-2005, 14-11-2005, 13-12-2005, 10-1-2006, 16-1-2006, 6-2-2006, 20-2-2006, 6-3-2006, 20-3-2006 and 3-4-2006 for one reason or the other. The roznamas written on 16-1-2006, 6-2-2006, 20-2-2006 and 20-3-2006, interlia, shows that on each of the said occasions the suit was adjourned with roznama written more or less as: "R/Arg on Exhs.12, 18, 20/WS on". Exh.12 was an injunction application. As already stated, the moment the applications D-18 and D-20 were rejected on 3-4-2006, the W.S. was filed. That is in sum and substance the history of the proceedings which is relevant to dispose off this Writ Petition.